Conclusion Kategori kondisi umum kelas

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

After finishing the whole steps of this study, the writer draws the conclusion referring to the result of the study. After that, related to the conclusion, the writer gives suggestion.

A. Conclusion

After conducting CAR at 8-2 class of SMP Negeri 2 Kota Tangerang Selatan academic year 20102011, it can be concluded that mind-mapping technique can improve the students’ ability in writing recount text. It can be proved from the following facts. First, related to the students’ achievement, there were 72.5 students who passed the KKM 70 with the improvement of students’ mean score from pretest to the posttest of the second cycle was 31.73. In the pretest, there were only 3 students who passed the KKM. Meanwhile, in the posttest of cycle one there were 13 students who passed the KKM or 32.5. Next, in the result of posttest in the cycle 2, there are 29 students or 72.5 students who passed the KKM in which their mean score of writing test derived 70.77, so it achieved the criteria of success. The last, the result of interview with the English teacher showed that the teacher gave positive responses to the implementation of mind-mapping technique in teaching writing since it could be an alternative technique to be used in teaching writing. In conclusion, this study was successful in developing the students’ ability in writing recount text by using mind-mapping technique. In addition, the students were more active and participated in the teaching-learning process of writing. Therefore, mind-mapping technique can be an alternative technique for teacher in teaching writing especially in writing recount text.

B. Suggestion

After conducting the study, the writer suggests that the teacher should deliver materials clearly and she also should pay attention to the students’ activity during the teaching learning process. The teacher should give more time in writing lesson. In addition, the teacher should be more creative in providing the topic which can motivate students to write. Moreover, mind- mapping technique can be implemented in writing activity, especially to develop students’ ability in writing recount text. The writer hopes that there will be any further research of it. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adelstein, Michael E. and Jean G. Pival, The Writing Commitment 3 rd ed., San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984 Anderson, Mark and Kathy Anderson, Text Types in English 1, South Yarra: Macmillan, 1997 Anderson, Mark and Kathy Anderson, Text Types in English 3, South Yarra: MacMillan, 1998. Arikunto, Suharsimi, Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2009. Barnet, Sylvan and Marcia Stubbs, Barnet and Stubbs’s Practical Guide to Writing, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1983. Blanchard, Karen and Christine Root, Ready to Write; A First Composition Text, 3 rd Edition, New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2003. Braine, George and Claire May, Writing from Sources: A guide for ESL Students, California: Mayfield, 1996. Brown, H. Douglas, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2 nd ed.. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001. Brown, James Dean, Testing in Language Programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment, New York: McGraw-Hill,2005. Buzan, Tony, Buku Pintar Mind Map, Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2005. Coffin, Caroline, et all, Teaching Academic Writing, London: Routledge, 2003. Creswell, John W., Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Pearson Education: New Jersey, 2008. Emilia, Emi, Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners, Bandung: Rizqi, 2010. Gebhard, Jerry G., Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language 2 nd ed., Michigan: The University of Michigan, 2006. Harmer, Jeremy, The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York: Longman, 1989. Hartono, S.S. M.Pd,, Rudi, Genres of Texts, Semarang: Semarang State University, 2005. Hoshima, Alice and Ann Hogue, Introduction to Academic Writing 3 rd ed, New York: Pearson Education, 2007. Langan, John, English Skills 8 th ed, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. Meltzer, David E., The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gains in Physics: A Possible Hidden Variable in Diagnostic Pretest Sores, Iowa: Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2008. Miler, Robert Keith, Motives for Writing; 5th ed, New York: The McGraw-Hill Comp, Inc, 2006. Mills, Geoffrey E., Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2003. Mukarto, Dr. M.Sc and Sujatmiko B.S, S.Pd, English on Sky 2 for Junior High School Student Year VIII, Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga, 2007 Pharr, Donald and Santi Buscemi, Writing Today: Context and Options for the Real World, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Richards, Jack C. Language Teaching Matrix, New York: Cambridge University, 1990 Richards, Jack C and Willy A. Renandya, Methodolgy in Language Teaching: Ontology of Current Practice, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002. Roberts, William H., The Writer’s Companion, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1985. Rogers, Henry, Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach, Malden: Blackwell, 2006. Smalley, Regina L., Mary K. Ruetten Joann Rishel Kozyrev, Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar, London: Heinle Heinle Publisher, 2001 Sudjana, Metoda Statistika, Bandung: PT. Tarsito, 2002 Sujiono, Anas, Pengantar Statisik Pendidikan, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2008. Sumardi, Mulyanto, Nasrun Mahmud and Nida Husna, Human Resources Development in English Language Teaching, Tangerang: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2008. Ur, Penny A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 . White, Ron and Valerie Arndt, Process of Writing, London: Longman, 1998. Windura, Sutanto, Mind Map: Langkah Demi Langkah, Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo, 2008. Articles Chaisiri, Tawatchai, Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of Writing in a University Context in Thailand, in Language Education in Asia, Vol.1, p.195-196 available at http:www.camtesol.orgDownloadLEiA_Vol1_2010LEiA_V1_2010_ Chaisiri_Implementing_a_Genre_Pedagogy__to_the_Teaching_of_Writi ng__in_a_University_Context_in_Thailand.pdf , downloaded on Saturday, January 22 nd , 201 Website http:en.wikipedia.orgwikiMind_map , accessed on Monday, December 06 th , 2010 http:www.mind-mapping.co.ukmake-mind-map.htm downloaded on Saturday, 22nd of January 2011 http:www.mind-mapping.co.ukmind-mapping-definition.htm downloaded on Saturday, January 22 nd , 2011. Appendix 1 STANDAR KOMPETENSI DAN KOMPETENSI DASAR BAHASA INGGRIS MENULIS KELAS VIII SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERTAMA SEMESTER GENAP STANDAR KOMPETENSI KOMPETENSI DASAR MENULIS 12. Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional dan esei pendek sederhana berbentuk recount dan narrative untuk berinteraksi dengan ingkungan sekitar. 12.1 Mengungkapan makna dalam bentuk teks tulis fungsional pendek sederhana dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar dan berterima untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitar. 12.2 Mengungkapkan makna dan langkah retorika dalam esei pendek sederhana dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar dan berterima untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitar berbentuk recount dan narrative. Appendix 2 Students’ Writing Score of Pre-test No. Students’ Name 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 Student 1 13 13 13 15 12 66 2 Student 2 12 12 10 12 11 57 3 Student 3 12 12 11 12 11 58 4 Student 4 14 14 13 15 14 70 5 Student 5 15 12 11 13 14 65 6 Student 6 12 12 10 16 13 63 7 Student 7 16 15 13 16 14 74 8 Student 8 8 10 7 12 10 47 9 Student 9 12 10 10 9 9 50 10 Student 10 12 10 9 9 9 49 11 Student 11 10 10 10 9 9 48 12 Student 12 13 12 9 10 9 53 13 Student 13 13 10 8 11 9 51 14 Student 14 10 9 10 12 8 49 15 Student 15 10 10 11 10 10 51 16 Student 16 15 15 13 12 15 70 17 Student 17 5 4 8 8 7 32 18 Student 18 15 15 12 11 12 65 19 Student 19 15 14 12 14 13 68 20 Student 20 14 12 11 10 10 57 21 Student 21 10 9 11 10 8 48 22 Student 22 10 10 8 11 9 48 23 Student 23 11 10 13 13 12 59 24 Student 24 13 11 9 12 12 56 25 Student 25 12 10 8 9 8 47 26 Student 26 12 12 11 12 11 58 27 Student 27 12 12 9 9 10 52 28 Student 28 14 14 12 11 12 63 29 Student 29 11 10 8 8 8 45 30 Student 30 11 10 10 9 9 49 31 Student 31 12 11 9 9 9 50 32 Student 32 10 7 7 7 5 36 33 Student 33 10 9 8 9 9 45 34 Student 34 11 10 8 9 8 46 35 Student 35 7 7 6 6 6 32 36 Student 36 12 10 9 9 11 51 37 Student 37 12 11 10 12 10 55 38 Student 38 15 14 12 14 13 68 39 Student 39 7 6 7 6 7 33 40 Student 40 15 13 12 14 13 67 TOTAL 2149 : The student who passed the KKM 70 The scores are processed from students’ answer sheets 1 = Organization: Introduction, Body Conclusion 2 = Logical Development of ideas: Content 3 = Grammar 4 = Punctuation, Spelling, Mechanics 5 = Style Quality of Expression Appendix 3 Students’ Writing Score of Post-test 1 No. Students’ Name 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 Student 1 15 14 13 14 13 69 2 Student 2 14 13 11 12 11 61 3 Student 3 14 14 11 11 14 64 4 Student 4 17 16 15 16 17 81 5 Student 5 15 13 13 14 12 67 6 Student 6 15 14 14 16 14 73 7 Student 7 17 15 14 17 15 78 8 Student 8 12 11 10 11 10 54 9 Student 9 13 12 10 11 10 56 10 Student 10 11 11 10 11 10 53 11 Student 11 15 13 13 13 14 68 12 Student 12 15 14 13 13 13 68 13 Student 13 15 15 14 15 14 73 14 Student 14 15 15 14 13 14 71 15 Student 15 14 12 12 11 12 61 16 Student 16 16 16 16 15 16 79 17 Student 17 14 14 14 15 13 70 18 Student 18 13 13 12 13 13 64 19 Student 19 14 15 14 14 14 71 20 Student 20 15 13 13 15 13 69 21 Student 21 7 6 7 7 6 33 22 Student 22 7 6 7 7 6 33 23 Student 23 15 15 14 14 14 72 24 Student 24 12 11 11 12 10 56 25 Student 25 11 10 10 12 10 53 26 Student 26 14 13 13 12 12 64 27 Student 27 12 11 10 11 10 54 28 Student 28 15 15 14 15 14 73 29 Student 29 12 12 10 13 11 58 30 Student 30 15 13 13 12 12 65 31 Student 31 13 11 10 12 10 56 32 Student 32 14 15 13 14 13 69 33 Student 33 13 13 12 13 12 63 34 Student 34 15 14 12 14 12 67 35 Student 35 12 13 11 11 12 59 36 Student 36 14 14 12 13 12 65 37 Student 37 15 14 14 14 13 70 38 Student 38 11 11 10 11 10 53 39 Student 39 15 14 13 14 14 70 40 Student 40 15 14 14 14 13 70 TOTAL 2553 : The student who passed the KKM 70 The scores are processed from students’ answer sheets 1 = Organization: Introduction, Body Conclusion 2 = Logical Development of ideas: Content 3 = Grammar 4 = Punctuation, Spelling, Mechanics 5 = Style Quality of Expression Appendix 4 Students’ Writing Score of Posttest 2 No. Students’ Name 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 Student 1 17 15 14 15 14 75 2 Student 2 14 13 12 12 12 63 3 Student 3 15 15 14 15 14 73 4 Student 4 17 17 16 16 16 82 5 Student 5 15 14 13 13 13 68 6 Student 6 16 16 15 15 14 76 7 Student 7 16 15 15 15 14 75 8 Student 8 13 12 11 11 10 57 9 Student 9 14 12 11 12 11 60 10 Student 10 15 14 14 15 13 71 11 Student 11 15 14 14 15 13 71 12 Student 12 16 15 14 15 14 74 13 Student 13 15 14 13 15 13 70 14 Student 14 16 15 13 15 14 73 15 Student 15 15 13 13 12 13 66 16 Student 16 16 17 16 16 16 81 17 Student 17 16 16 15 15 14 76 18 Student 18 16 15 14 15 14 74 19 Student 19 15 15 14 14 14 72 20 Student 20 15 14 13 15 13 70 21 Student 21 16 15 14 15 14 74 22 Student 22 16 15 14 15 14 74 23 Student 23 16 15 13 15 14 73 24 Student 24 15 13 13 14 13 68 25 Student 25 15 14 13 15 13 70 26 Student 26 16 15 14 15 15 75 27 Student 27 14 13 12 14 12 65 28 Student 28 15 15 14 15 14 73 29 Student 29 14 13 11 14 12 64 30 Student 30 15 15 14 15 14 73 31 Student 31 14 13 12 14 13 66 32 Student 32 15 14 13 15 13 70 33 Student 33 15 14 13 15 13 70 34 Student 34 16 15 14 15 14 74 35 Student 35 14 13 12 14 12 65 36 Student 36 14 13 12 14 11 64 37 Student 37 15 14 13 15 13 70 38 Student 38 15 15 14 15 13 72 39 Student 39 15 14 13 15 13 70 40 Student 40 16 15 14 15 14 74 TOTAL 2831 : The student who passed the KKM 70 The scores are processed from students’ answer sheets 1 = Organization: Introduction, Body Conclusion 2 = Logical Development of ideas: Content 3 = Grammar 4 = Punctuation, Spelling, Mechanics 5 = Style Quality of Expression Appendix 5 Table 4.1 Students’ Writing Score of Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2 NO. STUDENTS’ NAME PRETEST CYCLE 1 POSTTEST CYCLE 2 POSTTEST 1 Student 1 66 69 75 2 Student 2 55 61 63 3 Student 3 58 64 73 4 Student 4 70 81 82 5 Student 5 65 67 68 6 Student 6 63 73 76 7 Student 7 74 78 75 8 Student 8 47 54 57 9 Student 9 50 56 60 10 Student 10 49 53 71 11 Student 11 48 68 71 12 Student 12 53 68 74 13 Student 13 51 73 75 14 Student 14 49 71 73 15 Student 15 51 61 66 16 Student 16 70 79 81 17 Student 17 32 70 76 18 Student 18 65 64 74 19 Student 19 68 71 72 20 Student 20 57 69 70 21 Student 21 48 33 74 22 Student 22 48 33 74 23 Student 23 59 72 73 24 Student 24 56 56 68 25 Student 25 47 53 70 26 Student 26 58 64 75 27 Student 27 52 54 65 28 Student 28 63 73 73 29 Student 29 45 58 64 30 Student 30 49 65 73 31 Student 31 50 56 66 32 Student 32 36 69 70 33 Student 33 45 63 70 34 Student 34 46 67 74 35 Student 35 32 59 65 36 Student 36 51 65 64 37 Student 37 55 70 70 38 Student 38 68 53 72 39 Student 39 33 70 70 40 Student 40 67 70 74 TOTAL 2149 2553 2831 MEAN 53.72

63.82 70.77

: The student who passed the KKM 70 The scores are processed from students’ answer sheets Appendix 6 Diagram of Students’ Writing Scores Improvement 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Appendix 7 Observational Notes for Need Analysis 79 Action : Pre-observation Date : February, 7 th and 9 th 2011 Time : 08.20 A.M – 09.40 A.M and 11.30 A.M – 12.50 P.M Topic : The Schematic Structure of Biographical Recount Text What learners do What this involves Teacher’s purpose Comment  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about the schematic structure and linguistic features of recount text  Reading the text together  Reading the text orally one by one in front of the class  Discussing about the text with the teacher  Writing a recount text  Students’ are involved into individual work  Students read a biographical recount text with the title Thomas Alva Edison. The teacher explained the schematic structure of recount text and linguistic features and asked students to write a recount text.  Most of students didn’t pay attention to the teacher’s explanation  Students are looked boring.  Most of students didn’t do the writing well  Students are rarely active because they didn’t have opportunity to participate in the classroom  The teacher mostly liked to dominate the classroom. 79 Penny Ur, A Course in Language Teaching; Practice and Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996, p. 323 Appendix 8 Observational Notes for Need Analysis Action : First Meeting of Cycle 1 Date : February, 14 th 2011 Time : 08.20 A.M – 09.40 A.M Topic : The Schematic Structure of Personal Recount Text What learners do What this involves Teacher’s purpose Comment  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about the schematic structure and linguistic features of personal recount text  Reading the text together  Discussing about the text with the teacher  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about mind-mapping.  Making mind- maps with the theme My Holiday  Students’ are involved into individual work  Students read a Personal recount text with the title My Summer Holiday. The teacher explained the schematic structure of recount text, linguistic features, the concept of mind-mapping and asked students to make mind-maps.  Most of students didn’t pay attention to the teacher’s explanation  Students are looked boring and made scratch on their books.  Students are rarely active because they didn’t have opportunity to participate in the classroom  The teacher mostly liked to dominate the classroom and teacher’s voice was too low.  The explanation was too fast.  Some students were confused in making mind-maps.  The teacher only paid attention to the front rows students. Observational Notes for Need Analysis Action : Second Meeting of Cycle 1 Date : February, 16 th 2011 Time : 11.30 A.M – 12.50 P.M Topic : Making Personal Recount Text What learners do What this involves Teacher’s purpose Comment  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about how to make sentences based on the keywords and images they have made.  Making a personal recount text  Some students read their composition in front of the class.  Students’ are involved into individual work  Students made a Personal recount text with the theme My Holiday. The teacher explained how to make sentences based on the keywords and images and asked students to write personal recount.  Most of students looked more enthusiastic in making composition.  Some students yelled “Ah, bingung Bu” Mom, I’, confused  Two students in the last rows were talking all the time during the class and couldn’t finish the task well.  Some students were too busy in borrowing the dictionary and made the class was very noisy. Appendix 9 Observational Notes for Need Analysis Action : First Meeting of Cycle 2 Date : February, 21 st 2011 Time : 08.20 A.M – 09.40 A.M Topic : The Schematic Structure of Procedural Recount Text What learners do What this involves Teacher’s purpose Comment  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about the schematic structure and linguistic features of procedural recount text  Reading the text together  Discussing about the text with the teacher  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about mind-mapping.  Making mind- maps with the theme My Favourite Recipe  Students’ are involved into individual work  Students read a procedural recount text with the title Making Spaghetti. The teacher explained the schematic structure of procedural recount text, linguistic features, the concept of mind- mapping and asked students to make mind-maps.  The teacher’s voice was louder than the previous meeting  Only several students on the last rows who didn’t pay attention to the teachers’ explanation.  The teacher tried to attract students’ attention by telling her experience in making her favourite food.  The class was not as noisy as the previous meeting.  Students’ were quite active.  Some students were still confused in making mind-maps.  The teacher went around the class and helped students when they had problems. Observational Notes for Need Analysis Action : Second Meeting of Cycle 2 Date : February, 23 rd 2011 Time : 11.30 A.M – 12.50 P.M Topic : Making Procedural Recount Text What learners do What this involves Teacher’s purpose Comment  Listening to the teacher’s explanation about how to make sentences based on the keywords and images they have made.  Making a procedural recount text  Some students read their composition in front of the class.  Students’ are involved into individual work  Students made a procedural recount text with the theme My Favourite Recipe. The teacher explained how to make sentences based on the keywords and images and asked students to write procedural recount.  Most of students looked more enthusiastic in making composition.  Some students asked some vocabularies to the teacher.  Students were busy in making composition but the class was under control.  Some boys looked confused but the teacher came to help them.  Most students brought their own dictionary. Appendix 10 Interview Guideline for the Need Analysis Before CAR Wednesday, 9 th of February 2011 W : The Writer T : The Teacher

A. Kategori kondisi umum kelas

W : Bagaimana tanggapan siswa ibu dalam Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar KBM selama ini? T : Rata-rata mereka bilang agak sulit ya. Ada sebagian sih yang senang dan aktif kalau belajar, ya biasanya sih yang seperti itu yang ikut les di luar sekolah ya, Ki. Ya terus kadang mereka juga bilang waktunya kurang, kan di sini satu jam pelajaran itu cuma 40 menit, jadi ya gitu kadang karena waktunya kurang jadi mereka dapat PR. Nah, mereka kadang malas kalau sampe dapat PR. Kadang mungkin mereka ngerasa bosen ya, Ki, belajar di kelas melulu. Soalnya kan Laboratorium kita masih di renovasi jadi ya belum bisa dipakai. Jadi ya kadang-kadang saya ajak anak-anak belajar di perpustakaan aja supaya mereka dapat suasana lain. W : Berapa nilai KKM untuk pelajaran Bahasa Inggris di sekolah ini, Bu? T : Dari pihak sekolah sih enam puluh sembilan 69 . Tapi ya saya biasanya menganggap siswa itu nilainya tuntas kalau nilainya udah tujuh puluh 70. Soalnya kan tanggung ya, Ki, cuma selisih satu. Kan kalau masih dapat angka kepala enam tuh rasanya masih jelek gitu. W : Apakah selama ini nilai KKM tersebut tercapai oleh semua siswa? T : Ya gak lah. Biasanya, misalnya nilai Mid Semester, paling setengahnya aja yang bisa tuntas. Tapi biasanya ya ada remedial test. Jadi, ya sekitar tujuh puluh persen-an lah yang tuntas. W : Ibu mengajar berapa kelas di sekolah ini? T : Saya mengajar empat kelas, semuanya kelas delapan. W : Dari empat kelas itu, kelas mana yang nilai rata-ratanya paling rendah? T: : Wah, rata-rata sih nilai mereka standar ya. Soalnya kan kita gak ada kelas unggulan gitu, ya di tiap kelas itu ada yang bisa ada yang gak bisa jadi ya nilai rata-ratanya hampir sama. Tapi yang paling rendah itu kelas 8.2. jadi ya kalau saran saya sih penelitian di kelas itu aja, soalnya ya kelas itu yang paling punya masalah. W : Masalah paling besar ada di skill apa Bu? T : Sebenarnya ada dua ya, yang pertama writing, yang kedua itu listening. Kalau listening mungkin kalau laboratorium bahasa sudah jadi akan bisa diatasi ya. Nah, writing ini yang agak sulit.

B. Kategori kesulitan siswa dalam writing dan jenis teks yang dipelajari

W : Apa kesulitan yang siswa hadapi dalam skill writing ? T : Yang pasti sih mereka kurang vocabulary-nya, terus ya dari segi grammar juga tuh bermasalah, misalnya ya kalau di-recount kan kita harus pakai bentuk lampau, tapi mereka gak pakai. Kalau di narrative kan mereka lebih gampang ya soalnya gak harus pake bentuk lampau. Terus ya paling karangan mereka kadang gak nyambung, ya kadang bingung juga ya bacanya, maksudnya apa sih anak ini. guru tertawa Jadi ya gitu, kadang susah kasih nilainya. W : Di semester genap ini, jenis teks apa yang harus siswa kuasai? T : Sebenarnya sama ya kayak di semester ganjil, narrative sama recount. Tapi ya, di teks recount itu mereka punya kesulitan, ya anak-anak kan gampang lupa ya. Sekarang sih sedang belajar biographical recount ya, jadi yang personal sama yang procedural belum. W : Dari mana ibu mendapatkan sumber teks yang ibu ajarkan? T : Ya dari buku paket aja, saya sih pakai beberapa buku ya, ada English On Sky, terus buku-buku yang dari Diknas, LKS, ya kadang sih dari internet juga.

C. Kategori strategi pengajaran writing skill

W : Teknik apa saja yang pernah ibu terapkan dalam pengajaran writing kelas? T : Ya saya ngasih latihan nulis sesuai sama yang di buku aja ya, paling kan latihannya itu nyusun cerita, completing the story, free-writing yang paling sering, anak-anak langsung aja nulis sesuai topiknya, ya paling itu sih. W : Apa ibu memiliki strategi lain untuk mengatasi masalah writing di kelas? T : Hmm.. sampai sekarang sih belum menemukan teknik yang pas ya untuk writing. Tapi, saya pernah denger ya ada teknik Mind-mapping. Ya saya sih belum pernah mencoba teknik itu, tapi saya mau coba. Kan tekniknya menarik tuh, pakai warna, gambar juga. Jadi ya mudah-mudahan lah bisa meningkatkan nilai writing anak. Cireundeu 9 Februari 2011 Guru Mata Pelajaran Tri Endang Lestari, S.E NIP. 19671007 200801 2 006